To the editor: I think we can all agree that one of the most important decisions we make in our lives is, where we live. We selected North Berwick following our decision to move from Massachusetts for several reasons, most importantly, for its quiet, rural characteristics and our fondness for the antique home we found on a peaceful country road. The zoning change proposed by the town of North Berwick, is very personal to us. Not only will it negatively impact us financially, it will affect what we see, hear and experience every day of our lives. It will allow a business like Hannaford to march in to a neighborhood and develop a 35,000 square foot store surrounded by homes. It will allow other businesses to purchase residential homes and put up new establishments within 20' of the neighbors, further reducing setbacks from the existing 100'.

I have been told by a planning board member, that it will not have much of an impact, won't look that different. If you visit our Facebook page, Save North Berwick, Maine, you will see a photo of the land as it is now, and a photo of the backside of a Hannaford store. This will be the experience from our road, dumpsters', trucks, trash, lights, noise, etc. These are not the reasons why we chose to live in North Berwick.

I have been told by a planning board member, that we are not rural, we have Pratt and Whitney. Many of us have different opinions about what is rural, after all it is a subjective definition, often described as a feeling you get, partly based on population, access to services, proximity of land owners to one another and an overall sense you get from a community. Whatever definition one decides to use for our town, I think former Governor Baldacci put it best when he wrote a letter for our 175th anniversary, “In many ways North Berwick is the quintessential Maine town, not only because of its natural beauty and friendly inhabitants, but because of the care taken in maintaining the spirit of the town.”

Changing a residential zone to commercial to accommodate a large scale supermarket is not in keeping with the spirit of the town of North Berwick and does not allow for commercial growth in a responsible manner. I was approached by a resident who attended the public hearing and listened to dozens of homeowners concerns and she said, “We will not be personally impacted by the changes, but we support you, we are all neighbors.” This is the true spirit of North Berwick. We all need to reflect on the reasons why we chose North Berwick as our home.

Please vote no on the proposed zoning changes on April 6.

Karen Mathis

North Berwick, Maine

Stop XL

To the editor: An article in the Sierra Club magazine for February: “Stop the XL Pipeline” forever!!”

This pipeline project is the most dangerous and unnecessary project ever devised — purely for profit! Trans-Canada's PR campaign and multimillion dollar lobbying make it difficult for the truth about this pipeline to be heard! They are lobbying against a thorough scientific review of this whole project!

The United States does not need Keystone XL, nor any product produced by it! We have reduced our oil consumption by nearly 2 million barrels per day over the last 5 years! With the growing number of electric and hybrid cars, our oil use will continue to decline!

If this pipeline is approved and built, it would open a major export artery for toxic tar sands oil across our country for at least 50 years!

Please contact your senators and representatives and ask President Obama to totally reject this proposal forever and ever.

Patricia Newhall

Barrington

What happened?

To the editor: When I moved to North Hampton folks described Senator Stiles as consistent, reasonable, practical. What happened?

I know that today's Republican party no longer has room for such people but I think that's what New Hampshire voters want. I urge Sen. Stiles to remember this and maintain the outlook that got her re-elected.

Why is Senator Stiles opposing repeal of the education tax credit? She voted against the original bill because it was a bad idea. And now we find that a group called The Alliance for the Separation of School and State is using the program for its own political purposes — they say they want to shut down the public school system. Sen. Stiles was right the first time and that has become even clearer as the program has unfolded.

We are not doing justice to our taxpayers, our businesses or our students to lend public support to a politicized form of religious education. It's a bad use of public money and the students will not be prepared for college or the New Hampshire work force. Future business growth, jobs and salaries will be tied to high tech capabilities and creative minds not an environment that denies science and modern thinking.

Nineteenth century beliefs will not serve New Hampshire well, Senator Stiles. Please remember why you voted against this bad idea in the first place and realize that, now that we know more about it, it's even worse than we thought.

Dave Potter

North Hampton

Wasted $$

To the editor: Why is the Homeland Security Secretary again in the news warning us that budget cuts will impact air travel? Her agency this month authorized $50,000,000 for new uniforms for the 44,000 TSA agents two days before the sequester took effect. This is a one-year contract to outfit all employees with pants, shirts, jacket, socks, tie made approximately 80% with Mexican labor. Why wasn't this canceled and the money applied to serving the public at airports, if indeed the Secretary is telling us the truth?

In addition the new union contract with the 44,000 TSA workers will give them $446 a year in uniform allowances for “upkeep.” Lets contrast this with a Marine Corps combat Lieutenant who gets a one-time $400 uniform allowance for his career.

Whatever rock you turn over in D.C. identifies yet another example of how our federal government has no idea or any incentive to provide maximum value for the taxpayer dollar!

John Linville

Dover

Well regulated?

To the editor: In his Community Commentary of 3/4, Mr. Wayne Merritt asks “What is a well regulated Militia?” He then goes to say that he had a lesson in Constitutional law on NHPR in a debate hosted by Laura Knoy of a discussion on the 2nd Amendment by two Constitutional scholars. Apparently he didn't learn anything. If he had then he would know that the American Revolution began on the Green at Lexington when the British Army came to disarm the colonist, at that time fellow citizens of Great Britain. He would know that that action by the British precipitated the rise of the Militia resulting in the American Revolution being fought by militia, armed units from every colony. The “Militia” was 'the people' who volunteered to fight the British for their freedom. After that freedom was won, and the Constitution written, it is true, as Mr. Merritt states, that there was no standing army ... because the Founding Fathers feared the possibility of Tierney rising from the Govt. using just such a standing army to oppress the citizens. As a result each state had a “Well regulated Militia” made up of citizens from each state ... note the word “citizens”! ... not soldiers.

Mr. Merrit begins well but soon devolves into the ridicules. He postulates Mr. Obama being made dictator by “an act of Congress”. He suggests that as the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces that he could then order our Military to make war on gun owners. (A battleship won't fit in Portsmouth Harbor ... sorry Mr. Merritt — aside from the fact that we don't HAVE any battleships anymore) Does Mr. Merritt actually think that the this Congress or any Congress would agree to a dictator ship? Does Mr. Merritt actually think that the US Military would aquas to make war on their Fathers, Mothers, Brothers, Sons & Daughters, simply because they owned a gun? Does he not realize that any such action would result in a Civil War, in which I suggest the Military would stand with the people, the citizens of this country? I seem to recall that Mr. Merritt is a veteran. Does he not remember that the oath he took was to preserve and protect the Constitution and that no where in that oath does it suggest or imply fealty to the President, whomever he might be.

In the “Militia act of 1792” congress declared that “ ... each and every free white able bodied male ... of and between the ages of 18 and 45, shall be enrolled in the Militia”. In Federalist #46, Madison argued that “A standing army should be offset by a citizen militia, with arms in hand”. The sentiment was shared by Richard Henry Lee who was concerned that a Standing Army might rob citizens of their rights and wanted a “Militia made up of all men capable of bearing arms”. Despite the fact that the Congress authorized a “Standing Army” in 1784 by the time of the Civil War the federal army was so small that the majority of troops in that war were Volunteer Militia from the various states. They choose to place them selves under command of both Union/Confederate Generals, but there loyalty lie ultimately with their own respective states. Which is why when Robert E. Lee was offered the Command of the Union army, he declined as he felt a stronger loyalty to his home state of Virginia, then to the Federal Govt.

An intelligent and well thought out response to Mr. Merritts question of “What is a well regulated Militia” would be thus: it is the “people”, the citizens of this great country. ALL of us make up the Militia. And why would we not? If this country were ever invaded who among us would sit home and say “not my problem, let someone else deal with it.”. It is up to us, the people, the citizens, to defend the Constitution -ALL OF IT and in particular, the 2nd amendment. With out the 2nd, it's just words on paper. The “right to Keep and Bear Arms” is the ultimate guarantee for all of us to allow freedom to ring!

Tom Seiler

Dover

Do we pet horses or eat them?

To the editor: Last week, food safety officials in United Kingdom, France, and Sweden found traces of horse meat in ground beef sold across Europe. Massive recalls and lawsuits are ensuing.

Can it happen here? Horse slaughter for human consumption was banned in the U.S. between 2007 and 2011. But now, a New Mexico slaughterhouse is getting approved by U.S. authorities to slaughter horses for human consumption, and a Philadelphia restaurant has already announced plans to serve horse meat.

I marvel at our hypocrisy of rejecting the notion of horse or dog meat on our dinner plates, while condemning cows, pigs, and chickens to the same fate. Obviously, we have established special relationships with horses and dogs as our companions, protectors, and sports protagonists, rather than as food. But where is the ethical and logical distinction, given that all these animals are endowed by individuality, sentience, and an ability to experience the same feelings of joy, affection, sadness, and fear that we do?

Fortunately, our health food industry has spared us from having to choose which animals to pet and which ones to eat. Their delicious soy and grain-based meat alternatives are available in every supermarket.

Donald Deluca

Kingston

Just sayin'!

To the editor: I am writing regarding Cynthia Muse's LTE (4 MAR. 13).

Ms. Muse complains that the wealthy do not pay their fair share of taxes. To me, the meaning of “fair” means that one group should not be shown more favor than another group.

It is not fair that some Americans pay no taxes at all. It is not fair that some Americans by claiming more in credits than they owe in taxes will actually have a negative tax rate and therefore get payments from the government (all of us).

Where in the Constitution does it say that if you start a business, work hard for 25 years to build it up, eventually become successful and hire others, you then should be punished by having to pay a much higher percentage of your income in taxes?

This is still America. Everyone has the same opportunity to take a chance to become successful. If you are not willing to take that chance, you should not punish those who are.

She quotes various percentages showing that the “wealthy” are not paying their fair share. Her LTE is posted on page A5. If you turn the page to A6, you will find an article titled “Tax bills for rich families approach 30 year high.” The article claims that “average tax bills for high income families rarely have been higher since the CBO began tracking the data in 1979”. It also states that “middle and low-income families aren't paying as much as they used to.”. It appears to me that the successful are paying more than their “fair” share.

With approximately 47% of American families paying no income tax at all and more demands on the Federal budget (if this administration ever puts one together), we will find that our spending is unsustainable. To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher ... What happens when we run out of other people's money?

William Kaspriski

New Durham

Where are you?

To the editor: As a response to continued criticism of Republican policies intended toward deficit and debt reduction, as well as the expanding of the economy by a reduction of business regulations and cost, I believe history may incline us to consider these policies as correct.

It is an ineffaceable fact that the period during which America experienced its most vibrant years of economic expansion were those following the Civil War. During the post-bellum years, every American industrial record was broken. Between 1860 and 1870, the number of manufacturing facilities increased eighty percent, the value of their manufactured products by one hundred percent. As for industrial innovation, the post-bellum years saw the granting of 676,000 new patents. Agriculture, which assist industry as cheap food helps to hold down labor cost, grew as well, with the production of grains doubling.

There were several reasons for this economic success. but there can be no doubt this success was assisted by the initiatives of a Republican Congress and a series of Republican presidents. The Homestead Act, granting 160 acre farms to all and any willing to travel west, stimulated agricultural expansion. To further facilitate industry the Republican Congress passed the Morill Tariff of 1861. During the post war years, it repealed corporate taxes, income taxes, and wartime taxes on raw material, such as coal and iron. Between 1870 and the birth of the new century, GNP quadrupled and per capita income increased by two hundred fifty percent.

Armed with these facts they are, I remain incredulous that a small group of Republicans cannot deflect criticism from a large group of ill intentioned souls. Furthermore, this demonstrates that the Republican party of today probably knows less of its own history than it does of the Italian Renaissance. In 2010, several business leaders, such as Mr. Binnie and Mr. Bender, came forth as Republican candidates. Instead of acting, the Republican party reacted, choosing instead to follow the Democratic trend and electing a group of largely mentally dependent nonentities to state and federal office. As I ponder the future of American economics and of the Republican party, I find myself asking, Alex P. Keaton, where are you?

Michael Hastings

Barrington

Why all five?

To the editor: While Rochester citizens continue to struggle with the everyday costs of providing for ourselves and our families, five of our Democratic members of NH's House of Representatives voted to make life that much more difficult to manage. Representatives Anne Grassie, Pam Hubbard, David Miller and Audrey Stevens all voted to raise NH's gas tax by 83% over five years. That's fifteen cents over the next three years!

Now I understand safe roads and bridges are important to NH's economy and our ability to get to and from work. I also understand traveling over bad roads have associated costs with vehicle upkeep and no one wants to travel over a bridge that could collapse, but raising the gas tax by fifteen cents at a time when gas prices are soaring and alternative measures were available simply makes no sense. According to Charlie Arlinghaus from the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, “A four-cent increase in the gas tax would raise about $27 million each year. Fifteen cents would raise about $100 million per year (current gas tax receipts are $123 million). Merely following the current law to make sure the existing user fees are spent as advertised would add $28 million over two years before charging anyone anything more.”

So why the rush to raise taxes? Well, it might be because the prime sponsor of HB 617, Rep. Campbell (d) “gloated” in an email “that the increase of the gas tax was “a gift that keeps on giving,” and urged his fellow Democrats not to “spend it all in one place.” I'm by no means suggesting the five Rochester representatives who chose to vote to increase the gas tax feel the same way as Rep. Campbell, but I would like to know why they went along with the idea if they knew all we needed to do is follow current law an apply the same level of funding to our roads and bridges as HB 617 does.

If NH's policymakers are going to continue to make unwise decisions they will simply delay efforts to dig out from the existing harsh financial times. I urge you to contact your representatives and let them know how you feel. I know when I served it had an impact on how I made decisions.

Fred Leonard

Rochester

Action on adequacy

To the editor: I applaud the positive steps taken at the Tuesday, March 5 joint meeting of the Dover City Council and the Dover School Board. I look forward to working closely with the new Joint Committee on Adequacy Funding. As mentioned in the Foster's March 6 report on this meeting, a group of us were considering putting forward an amendment to a bill in the New Hampshire House to address the inequities of the current adequacy fund allocations.

All through those deliberations we were well aware that such an amendment was almost certain to be defeated in a House vote. But we initially proceeded on the premise that bringing it forward would be a positive step in raising the visibility of the issue for future action. After much consultation with colleagues in the House and with the Senate sponsor of the bill to which we were going to attempt to attach the amendment, I concluded that putting the amendment forward would be irresponsible. The action would very likely have harmed rather than helped our cause. I communicated that decision and my reasoning for it to all concerned. I will be happy to share that document with citizens who are interested in the details. Please email me at jimv4nh@gmail.com.

My recommendation then was that we introduce a bill this fall to correct the underpayment of adequacy funding to Dover and other underfunded communities. As new bills can only be introduced in the fall for the subsequent session, that is our first opportunity. The new Joint Committee on Adequacy Funding now has the time to gain a full understanding of the current funding laws, develop a strategy to make the changes, and build a broad coalition of support around the state. This is a real opportunity to pool diverse talents and build some trust and good will in a common cause.

We can do this well. I believe we can achieve our objectives. Time to pull together.